3 ms·
Most interesting fact from the article: > KABAS: If I understand correctly, some of the 28 people fired were not actually involved in the sit in. Is that right
by teddyh 3y ago
Most interesting fact from the article:
> KABAS: If I understand correctly, some of the 28 people fired were not actually involved in the sit in. Is that right?
> IBRAHEEM: Yeah, this was retaliation, like completely indiscriminate—people who had just walked by just to say hello and maybe talk to us for a little bit. They were fired. People who aren't affiliated with No Tech For Apartheid at all, who just showed up and were interested in what was going on. And then security asked to see their badge and they were among the 28 fired.
> They had to reach out after the fact to tell us, hey, I was impacted by this. Like we had no reason to suspect that someone who wasn't affiliated with us or wasn't even wearing a shirt or anything related to our sit-in—we had no reason to think that they would be retaliated against.
So Google knew everyone who even talked to these people.
- TiredOfLife 3y agoWhich definition of the word "fact" are you using?
- teddyh 3y agoFact as in “a piece of information, presumed to be true unless conflicting information is presented”?
- paxys 3y agoOk, here's a fact – all these employees were protesting and Google fired them with reason. Are you going to presume that is true?
- teddyh 3y agoUnfortunately, a public interview with a leader of a group does have more trustworthiness than a random forum comment, like yours. If, on the other hand, Google came out with a public statement saying that all 28 of these people were part of the protest, then that would create some room for doubt and warrant further independent investigation.